Community Defenders Winning Wind Farm Battle of Britain

In Britain, dogged community defenders are winning the Battle for Britain; skirmish by skirmish; village by village; town by town.

The wind industry is being pummelled by an environment in which the massive and endless subsidies upon which the scam essentially depends have been slashed – never to return.

And in which community defenders have been finally (and quite rightly) given a say about the protection and preservation of their common law rights – little rights, like the right to own and enjoy property; free from the unlawful interference of sleep-killing, incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

ANTI-WIND turbine protestors are celebrating following the announcement that a renewable energy company will not be appealing a decision to reject a £16 million development in County Durham.

Banks Renewables had wanted to put up four 125-metre wind turbines at Windy Bank, between Hamsterley and Woodland in Teesdale, County Durham, but the scheme was rejected by a Durham County Council planning committee in May.

Members of Hamsterley and Upper Gaunless Action Group [HUGAG] have spent six months preparing to fight an expected appeal from Banks Renewables.

But the appeal window closed on November 6 and Lewis Stokes, development relations coordinator at Banks Renewables, confirmed the group was not taking the scheme forward at the present time.

He said: “While we remain convinced that the Windy Bank wind farm is a well-designed scheme that is situated in an entirely appropriate location, the present Government’s disposition against onshore wind farms makes it extremely unlikely that we would be able to take this project forward and we have therefore decided not to appeal against the rejection of our planning application earlier this year.

“The Windy Bank site is wholly suitable for the type of development we were proposing, and it might well be that either Banks Renewables or another developer returns with a new planning application at some point in the future.”

A HUGAG spokesman said: “We are absolutely convinced that the unwavering opposition to the proposal shown by our supporters was central to this outcome. For over seven years the overwhelming majority of local people have staunchly stood against what we all perceived as a totally inappropriate location for an industrial development of this nature.

“We are by no means feeling triumphalist – we are only hugely relieved that the right decision has been taken in favour of the countryside.”Darlington & Stockton Times

Wind turbines saga may finally be over after three-and-a-half year battle
Melton Times
12 November 2015

A long-running saga over controversial plans to install two wind turbines in Thorpe Satchville may finally be over after a three-and-a-half year battle.

The Secretary of State has refused planning permission for the 77-metre high turbine at Park Farm and a 46m high turbine at Hall Farm, superseding previous decisions on both schemes.

Melton Council had originally turned down both applications, in 2012, on grounds that the turbines would, due to their height position and movement, introduce a new element into the landscape which would be widely visible.

But both schemes went to appeal and, in 2013, after considering the perceived adverse impacts as well as the benefits of the applications, planning inspector Wendy Burden gave them the go-ahead.

But those decisions were later quashed by the High Court, with the schemes reverting back to the appeal stage.

The appeals were subsequently called in by the Secretary of State to decide on them himself, having received an inspector’s report.

Earlier this year the Government announced new measures giving local people the final say on wind turbine proposals and setting out new considerations for local planning authorities to apply to proposed wind energy developments.

A letter sent on behalf of the Secretary of State to Park Farm turbine appellant Hazel Tolton said: “The scale and prominence of the turbine would case harm. It would reveal its blades above the skyline and would be seen from the important viewing point of Burrough Hill.

“In addition, if both the Park Farm and Hall Farm developments were allowed, the close proximity of the turbines and their disparate scale and speeds of rotation would be harmful, experienced both close to their sites and in views where they’re seen near together. There would also be cumulative visual harm with other turbines in the vicinity.”

The letter added: “Although the Park Farm turbine would produce 500KW of electricity, the harm arising from the turbine would be of a critical nature. In addition I’m not satisfied the planning impacts identified by affected local communities, which include harm to the landscape and visual impacts, have been addressed.”

In respect of the proposed Hall Farm turbine, in a separate letter to appellant professor Gary England, the Secretary of State said: “This turbine is easily visible from Burrough Hill alongside a number of other turbines dispersed across the panorama. From significant viewpoints the turbine would be seen above the horizon.

“Further, if the Park Farm turbine were to be allowed, overall there would be some cumulative visual harm arising from the two turbines together. While I accept the visual harm caused by the Hall Farm turbine would be less than the Park Farm turbine, I nevertheless consider there would be moderate harm to the fabric of the landscape which would remain for a significant period of time.

“Having weighed up all considerations I conclude the factors which weigh in favour of the proposed development do not outweigh its shortcomings and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight which would justify granting planning permission.”

Melton MP the Rt Hon Sir Alan Duncan and Melton borough councillor for the Somerby ward Leigh Higgins are among those who have voiced their strong opposition to the wind turbine proposals and both welcomed the Secretary of State’s decision.

Sir Alan said: “I’m delighted the Secretary of State has dismissed these appeals, as I urged him to do. I’ve been fighting against these turbines with local residents and ward councillor Leigh Higgins for years now, and finally we have some good news.

“We will wait to see if there’s a final challenge to the decision in the courts, but hopefully this marks the end of the road for this unwanted application. What’s clear is that the one turbine that has already been improperly erected must now come down.”

Mr Higgins added: “I fully welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. It has always been clear that these industrial sized turbines were unwanted and failed to address local concerns. It would have impacted upon local residents’ living amenities along with local landscape and heritage assets.

“I’d like to pay immense tribute to the local residents for their conduct, patience and putting together a model campaign. It is a testament of how working together can ensure communities are heard at the very top. It has been privilege over the years to play a part in that process and get the right decision.”

Should the appellants wish to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision they now have six weeks to apply to the High Court.Melton Times

Comments

If only we had the right to be ‘heard’ but to be seriously considered and our objections be accepted, but no we have to produce ‘peer reviewed’ scientific evidence that these massive industrial machines will not harm us or the native flora and fauna, or our visual amenity or the environment in general.
We have hurdles to jump through that we can ill afford while the industry just has to role out cut and paste reports from those they employ to produce them and their lobbyists working on Ministers to smooth the way for creation of regulations and approvals that only benefit the industry.

We are told what is going to happen ‘for the good of their industry mates’, what we want is of no interest to them. They say they are listening, that they will consult but this is ONLY AFTER they have made up their mind what is going to happen.
It’s been standard practice in SA for many years and practiced to the utmost by successive Labor Governments and Premiers.
TrustPower is apparently now says their wind monitoring equipment at Snowtown was not up to the job for todays scale of turbines, which sounds very much the same as what Infigen has been saying – being little wind at places such as Lake Bonney is the reason they are not making expected profits.

Maybe the EPA and industry noise testing equipment is also not up to the job for industrial scale turbines and especially for the scale we are seeing erected and proposed – of course the public and their experts have been saying it for years, but no one was listening and why – because it’s been taken for granted what the industry said about everything being ‘top notch’ and worlds best practice – but as we know their worlds best practice related only to the interests of the industry and its investors, not the environment and all who live in it, nor was it for the provision of cheap plentiful electricity.